Client Role Ambiguity and Satisfaction in Client-Ad Agency Relationships.(Polling Data)(Statistical Data Included)

An earlier investigation of the relationships between very large advertisers and their ad agencies found significant correlations among the variables of client-role ambiguity (i.e., lack of certainty regarding relationship and occupational role requirements), client satisfaction, and other relationship characteristics. The present study replicated these findings by investigating a national sample of marketing clients representing much smaller firms. The results indicate that, while role ambiguity is correlated with client satisfaction in the small account setting, there are also significant differences in the consequences of the ambiguity construct between large and small advertisers. In addition, the present study confirms that most clients express quite high levels of satisfaction with their advertising agencies.

ADVERTISING PRACTITIONERS AND RESEARCHERS have long Sought explanations for the success and longevity of client-ad agency relationships if only because their failure is costly for both organizations (Buchanan and Michell, 1991; Henke, 1995; Michell, 1987; Wackman, Salmon, and Salmon, 1987). Research indicates that less than half of client-ad agency relationships last longer than about five years (Adweek, 1992; Michell, 1990; Michell and Sanders, 1995), with an average length of no more than seven or eight years (Pendleton, 1988). Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the pace of account turnover is decreasing. A recent trend by marketers toward the hiring of competitors to the traditional ad agency--such as management consultants, marketing services agencies, "microagencies," and "idea factories" (Cheyne, 1998)--highlights the importance of relationship success and client satisfaction, especially for the ad agency.

An emerging line of research on advertising agencies and their clients (Beard, 1996a, 1996b) proposes that the client-ad agency relationship can be made more productive and more satisfying for clients if they are viewed as "partial" employees or temporary participants in the production of the agency service (Lovelock and Young, 1979; Mills and Morris, 1986; Parsons, 1956). This perspective has encouraged the application of previously intra-organizational constructs, such as occupational role ambiguity, to predict important inter-organizational outcomes, in this case, client satisfaction. Client-role ambiguity is defined as the lack of certainty regarding the requirements and expectations associated with a client's occupational role in his or her work with an advertising agency (Beard, 1996a).

The effects of the role-ambiguity construct on client satisfaction are important because research has consistently shown that client dissatisfaction is the primary reason for relationship failures (Doyle, Corstjens, and Michell, 1980; Michell, 1987; Michell, Cataquet, and Hague, 1992). Furthermore, research on the antecedents of role ambiguity indicates that individuals such as marketing client representatives--who must interact extensively with others (Jackson and Schuler, 1985) and who perform complex "boundary-spanning roles" (Miles, 1976; Singh, 1993)--are susceptible to role ambiguity. Consequently, both client representatives and their ad agencies are equally susceptible to the negative organizational and personal consequences associated with the phenomenon.

Indeed, Beard's (1996b) study of marketing clients representing very large advertisers found substantial and significant correlations between client-role ambiguity, client satisfaction, and other relationship outcomes. However, Beard also found unexpectedly high levels of respondent-role clarity (a reversed measure of ambiguity) and client satisfaction, and low levels of two negative relationship indicators: relationship-oriented tension/anxiety and conflict. One explanation for the positive and favorable client perceptions of these relationships is that the study captured a "best practices" phenomenon resulting from studying only the marketing industry's most well-trained, well-motivated, and capable managers and executives.

Thus, the study reported here sought to replicate and extend these earlier findings by studying a sample of marketing and advertising executives and managers believed to be more representative of a broader population of client-ad agency relationships. Specifically, the study explored how small advertising accounts differ from large ones on the basis of client satisfaction and other relationship outcomes by comparing the results from the present study to those obtained by Beard (1996b). The study also addressed the question of whether or not the previously found relationships between role ambiguity and client satisfaction hold in the smaller account setting.

BACKGROUND